"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
My definition: Excess: More than required.

Sounds reasonable.

... We need to go back to a gold standard / silver standard. Currency
that is backed by some hard item. Plutonium?

My gawd, that would be disastrous. You obviously have no idea what clue
even looks like!

Here's what you do... go down to the your local college and ask the
economics professor what would happen. Most likely he'll have a stroke
laughing, but if he survives, listen carefully to his explanation, maybe
take notes, it'll be an education for you.

OTOH shrug it off like all the other facts you seem resistant to. After
all, it's just a buncha pointy-head intellectual elitist blather, right?

... That way the government can not just print more paper and generate
inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.). The $20
bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago.

Well, duh.

Would you prefer going back to the pre-Fed monetary system where we had a
series of booms & panics, instead of steady inflation? Everything is a
trade-off. As long as inflation is reasonable (which I tend to think of as
anything less than about 15%) then it is far far FAR better than a never
ending cycle of some inflation, some deflation, interspersed with
super-inflation & collapse.

Here's a hint: look up the definition and origin of the word
"shinplaster."


.... And the US may default on it's debts. We would not be the first
nation to do it.

True but we would be the biggest & the richest to do so. We are not even
close to being in danger of default... yet... although plunging towards it
without looking back...

... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?

Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?


...Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb

Not really.

... and remember Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount.

???

... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?

Do a little research.


.... The government has to get the money from the people. The same
people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they cough
up?

I take you're in favor of tax cuts for billionaires, but not in favor of
making up the shortfall out of middle class & lower class pockets? WTF are
you doing cheerleading for Bush & Cheney, then?

In any event, you're living in the same fantasy land as most of the
Krause-obsessed retardo-fascist crowd. Maybe you should join their club?
The fact is, Reagan and Bush jumped the national debt by orders of
magnitude more than any other administration. Remember the Gramm-Rudman
Act, a response to Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility?


.... the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs.

Possibly. Don't hold your breath.

... I see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the
political process, if they get some decent leadership, that just does not
press for pot legalization.


Why should they not? There is absolutely no Constitutional grounds for the
federal gov't outlawing marijuana. Same for gun control, making abortion
illegal, etc etc. I suspect that you would *hate* the Libertarian platform
if it was explained to you in plain English.

DSK


You are not very smart. Can not understand what you read. I am for the
Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button. No broad enough of
a public platform. As long as they have a cheap, quick test for driving
while under the influence of pot, ala Breathalyzer, legalize it. Will not
happen as to much money is being made from illegal drugs. Both in the
marketing side and the enforcement side. Fiscal responsibility? 15%
inflation? How long to double prices at 15% rate? Remember Jimmy Carter
years? The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.